Hi Moorad,
Â
On the one hand I'm glad to hear that we are in agreement. I'm just not sure what it is we are in agreement about! :-) Â
Â
Let us not forget that 'scientia' is Latin for 'knowledge, understading,' that is, sciens, to know, understand. The 'modern' (while some even argue that 'ancient,' 'pre-modern,' 'modern,' 'post-modern'Â are useless distinctions!)Â understanding of 'science' is more specific, of a systematic, orderedÂ knowledge. The 'post-modern' understanding of science likewise has another meaning or signification (which many natural scientists still do not accept orÂ even allow themselves toÂ understand!). Science was once 'natural philosophy,' though at least in the N. American context, very few scientists consider themselves as 'philosophers' today.
Â
There is a great distance sometimes between natural science and human-social science and I get the impression, Moorad, that we differ here in that you view anthropology, psychology, sociology, economics and politology, etc.Â as 'not-scientific.' Yet many people do consider them as 'scientific' in the sense that they are 'social sciences.' So your stipulation that 'science studies physical Nature' is questionable (and why do you capialise the 'N'?). Do I understand you correctly? It would be helpful for me if you couldÂ explain your perspective of the difference(s) and similarity(s)Â between natural and social or cultural and historicalÂ when it comes to science, perhaps in another thread.
Â
Well, so, since 'science' is the at the core of my current research - i.e. sociology of science -Â I do haveÂ to makeÂ a clear definition of it, right?Â First, there is no single definition of science; there are many sciences, scientists and scientific methods, theories, approaches, styles, etc. We have learned this from advances in knowledge (some will doubt this) made by the academic field HPS. Second, the recognition of 'scientism,' that is, the over-stretching of 'science'Â into areas outside of its legitimate domain,Â poses a poignant blow to the European Enlightenment project that elevated 'science' into 'Science' - i.e. one of the most legitimate (if not the most legitimate) and authoritative forms of knowledge. Yes, there are many forms of knowledge, but for a particular western, modern understanding of science, which uses 'reason' and achieves 'progress' (both these two allied concepts can likewise be capitalised in the Enlightenment sense of
them), the sense that science is King or Queen is given voice. It is worth noting that though in the USA there is no king or queen, a type of 'nobility' is afforded to science that is not granted in other respective parts of the world (e.g. those which live more peacfully on the earth and as such cannot be said to be more 'primitive' than the self-said pinnacleÂ of the 'civilised' world).
Â
The relatively new recognition (of the possibility) of 'scientism'Â undermines this 'older' meaning of science and helps to, in the excellent words of David Livingstone, 'put science in its place.'Â Religious persons (esp. theologians) who are scientists are thusÂ in a position of 'double power,' where they can (preferably humbly) acceptÂ the mantle ofÂ wearing two crowns, the priests of old - holders of religious knowledge, and the priests of new - holders of scientific knowledge (and don't challenge the 'rightful' sovereignty of either of our crowns please!). However, this dichotomy of powers betrays the HUGE realm of human-social thought that cannot be pigeon-holed any longer under the title 'science' as the old definitionÂ would have it and as the category 'human nature' would obscure it.Â The maturing ofÂ social-humanitarian science and the recognition that 'science' (and technology)Â is ultimately a toolÂ for better human living, i.e. in society,
demands a new (21st century) re-interpretation ofÂ science's contribution to what counts as socially important knowledge, knowledge that is meaningful to humanitas, the trump category that the European Enlightenment didn't fairly play.
Â
The demarcation game has become somewhat farcical; in human-social sciences the Sokal Hoax contributed to the 'science wars,' which have now subsided with no clear winner or loser (though personally I side with Fuller over Latour on the centrality of anthropos in 'social science').Â For some natural scientists thisÂ further persuaded them that human-social thoughtÂ simply cannot be (i.e. qualify communicatively as)Â 'real science' or be done scientifically. Yet this demarcation play belongs particularly inÂ HPS or Science Studies and one can learn a lot from the Big Four, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend,Â for which I polled the ASA list a little while back, andÂ the latter twoÂ scholarsÂ many people have not read. So, I find it difficult (and oftentimes frustrating)Â to playÂ the demarcation game if these perspectives are not on the table. Thus, it seems, ASA is not an ideal place to debate what is and is not science (that comment is itself
debatable!), though in its welcome message, a wide variety of 'scientific/scholarly' fields are invited an consented to be 'somehow scientific.'Â For goodness sake, there are people who advocate theistic science (e.g. this is sometimes equivalent to 'theistic evolution' the way some people use it), so we have a spectum of views and no clear favourite as if science were dogma, with heterodoxy either impossible if one is a 'true scientist' or punishable by expulsion or outsider labelling. This gameÂ has become for meÂ zanudni (boring-dreary).
Â
Finally in response to your comment that: "what people mean by the wordÂ â€œscienceâ€